Forum:Artifacts - Shouldn't the ones that are clearly nicknames use the nickname template?
I notice that that the nickname template is used for people and locations, why not artifacts? While we do have artifacts with official (or rather historical/legendary names), such as the Ark of the Covenent, or the Holy Grail, there are many artifacts that simply have more decriptive name, such as the Limestone Tablet (seen Staff of Kings Wii and PS2 versions). Other artifact pages such as the ones that describe a random artifact such as some of the ones in the Barnett College in Fate of Atlantis would be better off using conjecture template, and probably already do. I think we should use the nickname template for any artifacts that have an official descriptive name, but don't have a given historical name. What do others think?Baggins 15:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :At first glance, it does seem inconsistent that artifacts don't usually get the nickname t emplate. Some artifacts have fairly specific names, especially if that artifact is essentially unique. Other artifacts don't have specifically unique identifiers (except maybe their museum ID numbers) but have more general names, like Golden Bowl. Is Golden Bowl a nickname for the piece? or is it the most proper name that we have for it? While it can be generally assumed that people and locations have proper names, but for some of them, all we have is a nickname, and so we use the nickname template for people and locations. It can't be generally assumed that every surviving pot, statue, and whatnot ever had a proper name. further, many antiquities lack specific model numbers, like we use for some vehicles and such. even Headpiece to the Staff of Ra could be construed as a nickname or it could be its real name as Indiana Jones knows it, but is the name that that item is best known as. Jawajames 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ::Actually if we were talking real world archaelogical examples, actually archaeological dig sites without specific names also have site numbers (essentially similar to artifact number but for site as a whole). Basically you would write on the field notes, essentially the main location of the dig, primarily its site number. Perhaps its "Egypt" plus site description, perhaps its as simple as "wadi" followed by whatever the Archaelogist assigns the site an Official Site Number. Unknown sites generally speaking go by their site number. Some sites may have more than one local name, if so all would be recorded, each being considered "official local names" rather than nicknames. Plus geographic/geology survey map numbers, any additional, range, section numbers, etc. But I suppose Indiana Jones wiki is not trying to go into that kind of detail, nor would it be able to. Although considering the amount of variation to this method, any number of so-called "official site names" may exist or in few cases created. It depends on the archaelogist involved however. But most will follow a similar system. 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)